To what extent was republican rule (1649-
60) different from the personal rule of
Charles I (1629-40)?
The differences in rule between Charles' 11 years of tyranny and the interregnum can be manifested
into three important themes: the nature of government, the approach to opposition and threats and
finally the approach to reform. Although there can be substantial differences between the two periods
of rule, several significant similarities bring the two periods closer together. In many ways, the two
periods of rule exenterate the dyer place that British people had to live through. The extent that the
republican rule (1649-60) was different from Charles I's personal rule (1629-1640) can be measured
against what was happening at the time and the three themes that I mentioned.
At first glance, the nature of the two governments seems very different, but upon closer inspection,
hold much more in common. The first significant difference between the two rules was the ruler at the
time's relationship with Parliament. Charles' absence of a parliament during his time (1629-40) in
comparison to the large number of parliament/government systems that the Cromwell's ran along side
from 1649-1660 is significant. Charles absence of a parliament came down to several things. First of
all, Charles' early Parliament had pre-existing doubts about how suitable he was to fulfil the King of
England's role. He was not brought up to be the King; he was always the second-best, his brother
Henry, to whom he adored, was meant the heir to his father James VI of Scotland. From the start of
his life, Charles himself leading up to his older brothers death was never brought up and treated as the
next King of England. Along with this, his first Parliament saw his marriage with Henrietta Maria as a
dangerous catholic influence to the country's throne. Thus, many saw that Henrietta Maria might
convince Charles and the country to turn away from traditional protestant practice to a more formal,
unknown catholic way. This and other things led to Parliament not levying tonnage and poundage,
which all of Charles' predecessors had received before him. Charles' frustration towards Parliament
can be shown in 1629 when he intentionally closed down Parliament and ruled the country shortly
without any parliamentary body. Whereas on the other end of the spectrum, Cromwell tried for many
years up to his death to try and bring about political stability, he thought he would do this by more of
a trial and error system, opening the Rump Parliament firstly, the barebones Parliament then came to
the 1st protectorate parliament and finally came the second protectorate parliament with which
Cromwell was offered the Crown through the Humble Petition and Advice. Cromwell's relationship
with Parliament being a far more useful thing than Charles' lack of time he gave to his Parliament.
Charles' tyrannical and stubborn ruling style, shown during his personal rule made Cromwell's job-
creating political stability a lot harder. Charles' absence of a parliamentary body is the most
significant factor in measuring the extent of the difference in their rules. On the other hand,
Cromwell's position as Lord Protector can be seen as King in all but the name, in other words,
Cromwell's position from September 1651 was very similar in terms of the power he had to Charles
during his personal rule. This is especially true when Cromwell was offered the Crown in February
1657. Cromwell had similar powers to Charles regarding having to call Parliament before the country
goes to war. He can call Parliament whenever he wants. Cromwell was also in charge of the army and
the navy. Many prerogative powers that Charles had, Cromwell felt God gave him as well.
Furthermore, Cromwell and Charles both had their council of advisers; Charles had a privy council
whilst Cromwell had a state council. Moreover, both leaders had very similar powers in terms of their
rule. Had Cromwell accepted the Humble Petition and Advice, his powers as the "king" would have
looked remarkably similar if not the same as Charles I during his personal rule. The Humble Petition
and Advice offered Cromwell the Crown and a privy council like Charles, had, whilst also having the
ability to appoint members of the house of Lords. Once again, showing in this respect that Cromwell
had signed the Humble petition would have been in a very similar position to Charles during his
personal rule. In judgement, in terms of their governments' nature, they did look different, this can be
especially seen with Charles' absence of a Parliament and Cromwell's numerous Parliaments that were
erected during his rule. However, in terms of the powers, Cromwell and the King's powers can be
60) different from the personal rule of
Charles I (1629-40)?
The differences in rule between Charles' 11 years of tyranny and the interregnum can be manifested
into three important themes: the nature of government, the approach to opposition and threats and
finally the approach to reform. Although there can be substantial differences between the two periods
of rule, several significant similarities bring the two periods closer together. In many ways, the two
periods of rule exenterate the dyer place that British people had to live through. The extent that the
republican rule (1649-60) was different from Charles I's personal rule (1629-1640) can be measured
against what was happening at the time and the three themes that I mentioned.
At first glance, the nature of the two governments seems very different, but upon closer inspection,
hold much more in common. The first significant difference between the two rules was the ruler at the
time's relationship with Parliament. Charles' absence of a parliament during his time (1629-40) in
comparison to the large number of parliament/government systems that the Cromwell's ran along side
from 1649-1660 is significant. Charles absence of a parliament came down to several things. First of
all, Charles' early Parliament had pre-existing doubts about how suitable he was to fulfil the King of
England's role. He was not brought up to be the King; he was always the second-best, his brother
Henry, to whom he adored, was meant the heir to his father James VI of Scotland. From the start of
his life, Charles himself leading up to his older brothers death was never brought up and treated as the
next King of England. Along with this, his first Parliament saw his marriage with Henrietta Maria as a
dangerous catholic influence to the country's throne. Thus, many saw that Henrietta Maria might
convince Charles and the country to turn away from traditional protestant practice to a more formal,
unknown catholic way. This and other things led to Parliament not levying tonnage and poundage,
which all of Charles' predecessors had received before him. Charles' frustration towards Parliament
can be shown in 1629 when he intentionally closed down Parliament and ruled the country shortly
without any parliamentary body. Whereas on the other end of the spectrum, Cromwell tried for many
years up to his death to try and bring about political stability, he thought he would do this by more of
a trial and error system, opening the Rump Parliament firstly, the barebones Parliament then came to
the 1st protectorate parliament and finally came the second protectorate parliament with which
Cromwell was offered the Crown through the Humble Petition and Advice. Cromwell's relationship
with Parliament being a far more useful thing than Charles' lack of time he gave to his Parliament.
Charles' tyrannical and stubborn ruling style, shown during his personal rule made Cromwell's job-
creating political stability a lot harder. Charles' absence of a parliamentary body is the most
significant factor in measuring the extent of the difference in their rules. On the other hand,
Cromwell's position as Lord Protector can be seen as King in all but the name, in other words,
Cromwell's position from September 1651 was very similar in terms of the power he had to Charles
during his personal rule. This is especially true when Cromwell was offered the Crown in February
1657. Cromwell had similar powers to Charles regarding having to call Parliament before the country
goes to war. He can call Parliament whenever he wants. Cromwell was also in charge of the army and
the navy. Many prerogative powers that Charles had, Cromwell felt God gave him as well.
Furthermore, Cromwell and Charles both had their council of advisers; Charles had a privy council
whilst Cromwell had a state council. Moreover, both leaders had very similar powers in terms of their
rule. Had Cromwell accepted the Humble Petition and Advice, his powers as the "king" would have
looked remarkably similar if not the same as Charles I during his personal rule. The Humble Petition
and Advice offered Cromwell the Crown and a privy council like Charles, had, whilst also having the
ability to appoint members of the house of Lords. Once again, showing in this respect that Cromwell
had signed the Humble petition would have been in a very similar position to Charles during his
personal rule. In judgement, in terms of their governments' nature, they did look different, this can be
especially seen with Charles' absence of a Parliament and Cromwell's numerous Parliaments that were
erected during his rule. However, in terms of the powers, Cromwell and the King's powers can be
